The anti-bossy campaign is just the latest example of the Left’s obsession with gender, sex, and sexuality as a way of remaking society

In America, it used to be that boys were boys and girls were girls, except for a handful of boys and girls who didn’t conform to the norm. Boys were at the top of the heap; girls had a carefully carved out, limited sphere of influence and opportunities; and sexually non-conforming people were ignored or abused, depending on both their ability to blend in and their community’s ability to cope with their differences. Both women and sexually non-conforming people were routinely denied equal treatment under the law.

The women’s lib and gay rights movements were originally sold as a way to ensure that women and gays (and, eventually, the whole LGBTQ spectrum) received equal treatment under the law. That was originally understood to mean equal access to education, employment opportunities, and house; equal pay for equal work; and freedom from overt, violent discriminatory practices — and that was it.

Since then, equal treatment under the law has become a picayune, limited goal. Instead, the Left is using gender and sexuality as a way to remake society entirely in opposition to heterosexual males, the ones who created Western society in the first place.

The latest push to remake society is the effort either to ban the word “bossy” or to turn it into an undiluted positive when the word is applied to girls. This, of course, ignores the reality of bossy little girls.

Girls are bossy, something that comes about because they model themselves on their mothers. Despite decades of Leftist marriage, gender, and sexuality rejiggering, for most children, Mom is the Big Boss in the house. (Indeed, considering the soaring number of single moms, she’s the only boss in the house.) The vast majority of little girls identify with mommy. That’s a fact that no gender theory will ever change. So if Mommy is bossy — as she has to be in order to run a household with children — then a little girl’s logical assumption is that, to be a grown woman in training, she too must be bossy.

And what about the claim that we’re all wrong to say it’s obnoxious when girls are bossy? I couldn’t disagree more. It’s incredibly obnoxious when girls are bossy. What’s appropriate coming from a grown woman with responsibilities is profoundly irritating whether a 4-year-old lisps orders to her friends, a 10-year-old hollers imprecations at her brother, her a 15-year-old, in a strident whine, tells her parents what she wants them to do. It’s obnoxious not because the 4, 10, and 15-year-old are female, but because they haven’t yet earned the right to boss anyone around. The issue is age, not sex.

Even as the Leftist/Progressive/Democrat establishment seeks to make it so that every girl’s fecal matter is perceived as perfumed, the relentless attacks on boys never end. Fortunately for me (’cause I’m lazy), I don’t have to go into detail on this topic because Matt Walsh has already done so, saying what I would say, only doing it better.

So let me just skip ahead to a discussion of the Left’s latest attack on America’s last bastion of masculinity: the military. The military used to be the place where you sent your boys to become men. Now? I don’t know. The military is still overwhelmingly male, but the Obama administration, even though it cannot change the numbers, is doing its best to change its manly ethos.

Gays can openly serve now, which puts a great deal of pressure on young men. While the Left will freely acknowledge that women shouldn’t have to shower with men who view them in a sexually predatory fashion, and that women in the military are at risk of becoming victims of violent sexual attacks from predatory men, the Left refuses to acknowledge that gay men can be equally predatory to other men. (And lesbian women are often predators to other women.) Under the new paradigm, shying away from showering with an aggressive gay man or lesbian woman isn’t logical self-preservation and respect for ones own sexual integrity; it is, instead, homophobic and the people holding such views must be re-educated and/or destroyed. It’s an interesting social experiment, but a disastrous burden to place on an institution that has as its primary task combat training and preparation to fight off enemies of unspeakable savagery.

Placing women in combat is also a de-masculinizing effort (yes, it’s a neologism) on the Obama administration’s part. Training standards will have to be lowered because it’s the extraordinarily rare woman who can compete head-on physically with men. Men are bigger and stronger. They have stronger bones and joints. Their skin is tougher and has fewer nerves, meaning it’s less sensitive to pain. They get less breathless. They can pee standing up or into old water bottles, and they don’t have periods or get pregnant. They are vulnerable to rape (see the above paragraph), but less vulnerable, especially because cultures other than America subscribe to the Red Army’s approach to despoiling conquered women.

The only way women can compete equally with men is to lower the standards for men. This means that young men will not be challenging themselves as much. To the extent many join the military because men need challenges, the military becomes less attractive. Additionally, young men aren’t fools. They know that women will create physical and emotional drags on a combat unit. Only in the Ivory Tower, surrounded by theory, would people think that women with their different biology are identical to men for all purposes, including combat.

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention report on suicide attempts among transgender and non-gender conforming adults (Jan.2014) found that the while rate for suicide attempts in the general US adult population is about 4.6%, in transgender people, the rate is 41% (46% for trans men).

There is nothing closer to who and what we are than are gender and sexual orientation. A wise friend of mine thinks that Islam’s entire beef with the Western world is the fact that, as Westernism creeps into Muslim communities, women fight to leave the harem, the burqa, and the hijab. All other insults to the religion are tolerable, except for the one that shakes up the relative values between men and women under Islam.

The Left understands this, but it heads in an opposite direction from Islam. Rather than attacking women and gays to gain control over culture, it attacks heterosexual males. This is why, beginning when they’re just little children, America’s males are systematically demeaned and insulted. They are also deprived of opportunities to express their masculinity in positive ways and, instead, are reduced to expressing it through computer games, random violence, and perpetual dorm-style sloth and slobbery. If you want to see the end of a sustained Leftist attack on men, you need only look to the American black community, where men have been rendered useless. The government fulfills all the functions women need (shelter, food, health care, and child care), leaving the men responsible only for spread sperm. No wonder, then, that black men have developed a culture focused on the size of their weapons (both of which, ironically, are tucked in the pants): guns and penises.

_____________________________
*No, I’m not saying people on the LGBTQ spectrum are “perverts” or “sickos,” or that they should be ridiculed, humiliated, discriminated against, hanged, beaten, imprisoned, or anything else. I don’t believe that.

What I do believe is that love and physical desire are a combination of mind, biology, and culture, and that, when it comes to consensual adult relationships, it’s my business to stay out of it. When I look at people, I judge them on values other than their sex partners, values such as individual freedom versus government control, stable relationships versus promiscuity, hard work versus parasitism, kindness versus cruelty, etc.. I do, however, reserve the right to look down upon people if their choice of sex partner is their only value.

So, rather than sit in judgment on LGBTQs, what I’m trying to say is that non-heterosexual orientations are statistical anomalies and that it is impossible to build a culture around a biological statistical anomaly. It won’t stick.

Like this:

You forgot to mention the Manning security breach was mostly because he didn’t like how the Army refused to pay for his transexual surgery and thus fell into self weakness. A person that can’t or doesn’t want to pay for his own surgeries, elective as it is, has no position to judge what the Army is or isn’t doing in Iraq. But because of “homophobia” (Ft. Hood was caused by people being told to let Islamics go or be accused of Islamophobia and re-educated), nobody did anything about Manning.
So we have two minorities which the Left has somehow generated 100% of the incidents for.

Libby

Ugh, Manning!
There’s also Army Reserve Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge (or not so in charge) of Abu Ghraib during the prison abuse scandal in 2003, and the scandal’s most notorious perpetrator, Lynndie England.

The Left has destroyed the fundamentals of society to such a point that it can no longer be reconstructed.

We no longer have the oral or generational connection to reconstruct it. It has to be burned down and restarted from day 1, Eden itself.

Everything must be torn down.

Wolf Howling

1. Some have suggested that the anti-bossy campaign is battle-space prep for Hillary in 2016. That sounds right to me.

2. What the left has done to our military is horrifying. The military has one mission, to win wars. Making the military the petri dish for the left’s social experimentation is beyond maddening. As a former infantry officer, I can assure you that introducing sexual tension into line units will. at best. reduce unit cohesion, if not destroy it completely. Further, reducing physical standards that have been borne of a century of experience in war so as to further this social experiment could be equally as damaging to unit cohesion and our ability to fight wars. Our 2002 military ate Iraq in a matter of three weeks while sustaining only negligible casualties. I can assure you that the Obama military will never perform to those standards. The price in the blood of our soldiers will be far, far greater.

3. Those in flag rank who have not resigned and taken a stance against this deserve the same fate as the senior Naval flag officer who said that global warming is our biggest security threat. They should be stripped of rank and pension as an abject lesson to the next generation of officers.

4. We are going to very quickly go from the finest military in the world to one that is not mission capable. When we have to go to war with the Obama post-Iraq military, many young people will die unnecessarily. In respect thereof, I have advised my son, currently serving, to get out of the military.

5. It should also be noted that the history of the U.S. military from the very start of the nation has been that following hostilities, we draw down the military to a dangerously low level and neglect military r&d. It is maddening because history shows with complete clarity that we will pay for such idiocy dearly with the blood of our soldiers.

6. Book, you raise most of the problems associated with putting women in combat arms professions; however, you miss one salient fact – testosterone. Testosterone allows for resiliency and women don’t have it. A particularly fit woman may be able to hang with the boys in physical training on any particular day – or every day with sufficient rest afterwards (Indeed, I used to run with a girl who was a nationally ranked distance runner in college – and on a daily basis, she outran me). But few if any women will be able to withstand the type of incredibly grueling life a line infantry soldier leads day in and day out over time because their bodies will not recover fast enough.

That’s why they will slack off. The women for Democrats in the military mostly do so because combat training offers better promotion and benefits than non combat lines. For homosexuals it is about social acceptance and of course promotions. For Islamic Jihadists, it’s about accessing higher level authority via promotions and being allowed to do whatever because of Islamophobia.
Once they are promoted, the women Democrats will go the course of John Kerry, either politics or general staff rank and benefits. They won’t be on the front line any more.

The Democrats are gearing up for a world war to eliminate a bastion of American patriotism, the US military, via extreme grinding and blood baths, What remains will be sent back home via a reception ala Vietnam veterans. Well, that’ll happen anyways even if the Left’s experimentation of military conditioning fails.

Remember when the Left were pulling politicians, combat veterans, and generals up to the media propaganda to talk about troop casualties in Iraq and lack of body armor?

Tara S

If it wouldn’t immediately garner dirty glares and cries of “segregation!”, I’d suggest that they gather up the female soldiers and put them into their own separate troop(s), so as to avoid all the problems potentially caused by their mingling with the males. A reasonable step, really, since it would drastically lower the chances of rape by a fellow serviceman.

Of course, if people stopped to think about the unique vulnerabilities and weaknesses that an all-female group of soldiers would have — the thought of it brings to mind images of their being specially targeted by the enemy (and specially treated when captured, if you know what I mean, which unfortunately I think you do), disproportionately decreased morale if said troop was to fall at enemy hands, and the fact that at any given time about 1/4 of them would be subject to potentially debilitating cramps and messy menstrual flows, among other things — then we might realize that the downfalls associated with female soldiering really only seem reasonable when the females are surrounded by men on every side who can protect and take up the slack. And I say that as a female who has considered joining the services, and who might have considered it more seriously if I was the tiniest bit athletic.

On a side note, speaking of the military, has anybody seen Enlisted, the thirteen-episode miniseries airing on Fox? It’s surprisingly amusing.

Jane Dough 5000

None of this has anything to do, really, with gays, or trannies, or bossy women. It’s about an agenda from a Communist Muslim Kenyan who hates America, and that’s it. Communist: He admitted to Charles Gibson that he favored raising taxes on the rich and wealth redistribution, even after Gibson said it wouldn’t generate any additional revenue. Obama said that wasn’t the point. And to “fundamentally transform” a capitalist nation means, ipso facto, instituting communism. And “you didn’t build that.” And “at some point you’ve made enough money.” And “income inequality.” And takeovers of student loans, the auto bailout, most of our mortgages through Fannie/Freddie and essentially all of Wall Street through QEIII and Dodd/Frank. Co-opting the Census Bureau, the IRS and the NSA. Also, of course, complete disrespect and disregard for Constitutional law. All of his role models growing up were Communists, including his dad who wanted 100% confiscation of all private property. The kid never had a chance. Muslim: He referred to his “Muslim faith” during an interview with George Stephanopoulos. He mentioned 57 states on his campaign plane (an inadvertent reference to the 57 Muslim states). He was schooled in a madrassa. And his father was a Muslim; therefore, according to the Quran, he must be born a Muslim. If he renounces his Muslim heritage a fatwa is issued (and I don’t see any fatwas with his name on them). Kenyan: He said he was born in Kenya on his Acton & Dystel author’s biography, and I must take him at his word. Of course, most people also believe his Hawaii BC was the worst forgery in history, and that he enrolled into Columbia as a foreign exchange student. In sum, the war on women, the LGBT agenda, abortion on demand, trannies in khakis … all just icing on the cake for our Manchurian Candidate.

Preview breaks all paragraph breaks and even html. Even the normal one here doesn’t get the spacing correct.

“A reasonable step, really, since it would drastically lower the chances of rape by a fellow serviceman.”

Not only reasonable Tara, but it’s already been made to work by historical military units. Homosexual lovers composing the Theban sacred band, for example. Or Amazonian esque, barbarian, horsewomen virgin archers.

The thing about Obama is that people need to sprad the hate around, like Hussein spreads the wealth around. The people who put Hussein into power needs to face the consequences of that decision. Yet all too many Americans go along to get along, forgive the unforgivable, and then are surprised that enemies of humanity keep committing crimes against humanity.

While I and other people I know may be able to train a group of women or any other select pick, to be warriors first and those obedient to the Left’s ulterior agenda second, I can’t say that the Left will do so.

The Left will create a bunch of cannonfodder and the more that dies, the more powerful the Left’s blood magick becomes. The more blacks die and are made poor for generations, look upon the face of the Democrat party and see how much power it has gathered from this sacrifice and wonder bow it can be otherwise.

The idea that women, in general, will somehow “benefit” or that homosexuals will benefit by being in the military under their sugar daddy Democrat protection… will face the music the blacks are facing right now, sooner or later.